The Internet of Everything
A new kind of infrastructure project - Should the government step up and get to work on the information super-highway?
That is the crux of the argument in this post. Should the U.S take charge of investing, building, and maintaining the infrastructure for broadband communication? THIS article makes that argument.
The federal government has many responsibilities, even if you're one of those conservatives who actually believes in a delusion of conservatism that strips government of virtually all responsibilities. Many of the responsibilities the government does hold are an extension of the fact that they are better suited at handling certain tasks.
The interstate highway system was undertaken over half a century ago. It literally paved the way for faster, more efficient, interstate commerce. This in turn made international commerce easier as inland areas were better connected to the coastal ports. The multiplicative effect of the interstate highways on commerce is something we can hardly comprehend. That's not even getting into the social implications, such as the ability for people to more easily relocate for health, wealth, love, whatever.
The same can also be said of the air traffic control system across the nation. As the article I linked above points out, we would be in a much different place economically, socially, if such large and daunting tasks were left up to private industry. The article goes on to note how many of those nations that have surpassed the U.S in aggregate internet speed have done so by way of nationwide plans for connecting communities.
To this end the U.S, birthplace of the internet, has done much more talking than taking action. Private corporations are still relied on for running new lines, upgrading them, and maintaining them, despite usually still needing to get approval from the government to do any of the actual work. The result has been lackluster fulfillment of service in some areas of the country, to non-service in others. Many rural communities lack any broadband access at all, many of those that do have it relegated to low speed, high latency, connections at steep prices, these prices due mostly to the cost of placing the service in the given area.
The argument against the federal government handling the infrastructure end of the internet has been one about the cost. One can argue, however, that the net benefit is far greater. In the short to medium term such an infrastructure project serves several purposes. First, it satisfies the need for a powerful jobs program, something that the nation needs to help shake off the lingering effects of the recession; something many democrats would want. Second, it frees up industry by allowing them to divert the attention and money being spent now on their piecemeal approach to infrastructure and redirects it towards other ventures; something republicans would like. Before you worry about the cost, think about this - currently the U.S spends billions of dollars each year in tax breaks, matching programs, and the like to encourage private industry to do this task. Finally, this will allow more U.S homes and businesses to become connected to quality high-speed internet, enabling students to take better advantage of the research tool, families to be opened up to more opportunities, and for businesses to expand with new tools and reach new customers.
But, of course, the first thing many will look at is the price tag and immediately say, "no way". I will agree with the article. The best, most logical, way to expand high-speed internet to the entire country isn't to rely on Google, or Comcast, or Time Warner. It is to get the infrastructure up and running and then let the private industry handle distribution and service. The government should build the highway. It will never be as good a time as now to do it.
That is the crux of the argument in this post. Should the U.S take charge of investing, building, and maintaining the infrastructure for broadband communication? THIS article makes that argument.
The federal government has many responsibilities, even if you're one of those conservatives who actually believes in a delusion of conservatism that strips government of virtually all responsibilities. Many of the responsibilities the government does hold are an extension of the fact that they are better suited at handling certain tasks.
The interstate highway system was undertaken over half a century ago. It literally paved the way for faster, more efficient, interstate commerce. This in turn made international commerce easier as inland areas were better connected to the coastal ports. The multiplicative effect of the interstate highways on commerce is something we can hardly comprehend. That's not even getting into the social implications, such as the ability for people to more easily relocate for health, wealth, love, whatever.
The same can also be said of the air traffic control system across the nation. As the article I linked above points out, we would be in a much different place economically, socially, if such large and daunting tasks were left up to private industry. The article goes on to note how many of those nations that have surpassed the U.S in aggregate internet speed have done so by way of nationwide plans for connecting communities.
To this end the U.S, birthplace of the internet, has done much more talking than taking action. Private corporations are still relied on for running new lines, upgrading them, and maintaining them, despite usually still needing to get approval from the government to do any of the actual work. The result has been lackluster fulfillment of service in some areas of the country, to non-service in others. Many rural communities lack any broadband access at all, many of those that do have it relegated to low speed, high latency, connections at steep prices, these prices due mostly to the cost of placing the service in the given area.
The argument against the federal government handling the infrastructure end of the internet has been one about the cost. One can argue, however, that the net benefit is far greater. In the short to medium term such an infrastructure project serves several purposes. First, it satisfies the need for a powerful jobs program, something that the nation needs to help shake off the lingering effects of the recession; something many democrats would want. Second, it frees up industry by allowing them to divert the attention and money being spent now on their piecemeal approach to infrastructure and redirects it towards other ventures; something republicans would like. Before you worry about the cost, think about this - currently the U.S spends billions of dollars each year in tax breaks, matching programs, and the like to encourage private industry to do this task. Finally, this will allow more U.S homes and businesses to become connected to quality high-speed internet, enabling students to take better advantage of the research tool, families to be opened up to more opportunities, and for businesses to expand with new tools and reach new customers.
But, of course, the first thing many will look at is the price tag and immediately say, "no way". I will agree with the article. The best, most logical, way to expand high-speed internet to the entire country isn't to rely on Google, or Comcast, or Time Warner. It is to get the infrastructure up and running and then let the private industry handle distribution and service. The government should build the highway. It will never be as good a time as now to do it.
Comments
Post a Comment